Your stats would tell you that I'm a 1024x768 user however my browser window (dispite being maximised) is only 800x600. This is because of the search bar that run down the side. Almost every browser has a similar bar which shows search/bookmarks/history etc. and I imagine many users have this visable.

The stats tell you the screen resolution not how big a browser window someone has

One essential event finally turned me from a "liquid layouts are the only format that true Internet professionals use" kind of guy to a "fixed layouts have their place in specific instances" type of guy. And that is: I got older.

Not so much physically older (though that happened too of course). My eyesight is fine, though the small type is looking blurry these days. No, it's simply overload. Too many years dealing with too much email and too many phone calls competing for my attention. Too many frenetic TV documentaries with jerky camera movements, constant cross-cutting, and incoherent narrative lines. Too many web layouts with flashing banners and loud colors and a multiplicity of headlines and text and graphics and colored boxes and on and on and on. Enough already! Give me a break. I yearn for simplicity. But most of all, I yearn for *clarity*.

You have to ask yourself how you think the "extra space" will contribute to communicating your message. On many 1024 layouts I see, there was "extra space" but I didn't get "more information" out of them because they were just a jumble. Line lengths that stretch far, far beyond a readable dimension. Or a cacophony of multiple columns and graphics crammed side by side. The designer thought the wider space gave him or her more creative freedom. But it was just an illusion. It gave them a space that they couldn't fill up in a fashion that communicates coherently to an average sort of person.

Anyway, even if 100% of web users suddenly were viewing your site at 1024 by 768, I think you'd have to ask yourself whether your layout will fit your communication goals. There's no single formula for success. Certainly you should "go wide" just because you can. If it makes sense, go for it. But consider your audience and whether it really connects with them.

Somes sites -- hey, like this one -- are just fine liquid. To keep the line-lengths readable, I keep the browser at only about 60% of the screen size. I guess that's fine because those who can deal with longer line lengths can have it their way. But for me, it means I'm constantly, constantly resizing my browser to fine-tune the reading size for each site.

What are you designers using to test your sites on different resolutions?

I've recently bought a Dell flat screen that won't display less than 1240 (well it will but it looks naff), which i am happy to use as my desktop, but I'd like to find a simple method of viewing a page in 800 and 1024 for testing/compatibility

I use 1280x960 and am on a Mac. Even though I can change the screen resolutions, didn't really see how my site looked on a PC (bought Virtual PC), and freaked when I did. Mac does all these wonderful things with type and friends (who tend to be in the 40+ group) said the type was a little large, but it looked OK. Hah. :roll: Thank goodness it was just a CSS fix.

Hey, what about me, I want to use my zx81 with my homebuilt serial interface, custom dram interface, and homebuilt rs232 port to view websites.
Im limited to 64x48 pixels. I demand you cater for me.

At some point you need to draw the line.
I draw the line when a monitor capable of that resolution has been around for a few years, and is dirt cheap new or second hand.
If you use 800 by 600 then you need a better supplier for your computer equipment, or a new job with a boss in the real world.

1024x768 is accessible to people now, without any cost implications to speak of.

Any higher than that and you get problems with people with bad eyesight.

Politicians crack me up, I read recently that one in america is trying to pass a bill banning FIREWALLS..

There was that derrek on big brother, he is a politician I think, but I cant make my mind up if he is for real or acting...

Wish I had never given that job in the NHS up, it was the best one I have ever had, but I got conned by employment training company (I was working for free) and they told me to go for a paid job...

The department was great ( I was offered 2 jobs, I turned down the job working for the consultant mentioned earlier). It was a r&d department, and unlike at sage, it actually was a real r&d place, they even invented the worlds first moving ultrasound machine (the thing they check you with when pregant, used worldwide) in that place.

STill kicking myself for trusting that employment training place......

Get a handle on who is visiting your site an their system stats..... My sites range from 23% running 800x600 on a gadget site to almost 40% on travel site. Still must design for 800x600 or I will not respect my visitors.

After awhile I just grew tired of limiting my real estate for a small percentage of people. 800 pixels doesn't give you what it used to, I guess. Liquid layouts are okay, except that you're still designing it for an 800 pixel wide screen that just gets stretched laterally when a visitor's resolution is higher, which can lead to a pretty goofy layout at some of the resolutions I've seen some people operate at.

So, yeah. My expectation for visitors is that they jump on board - ditch their IE5 and 13" monochrome CRT and enjoy Web 2.0. I think that movement has been happening long enough that it's now less a matter of respecting the visitor and more reminding them that they need to upgrade.

Well I for one am excited about the latest article on A List Apart: Fluid Grids. It's not a complete solution, but it's a very intriguing one that can be scaled from < 800x600 to > 1024x768. Definitely worth a read.